We can consider that exists 4 historycal steps on the iberian-american contemporary thought.
The first one can be called ‘ontological’ or also ‘philosophycal americanism’, took part in the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century.
During this period, extended to 1970, theoretical figures of latin-american thought, like Juan Alberdi, José Marti or José Vasconcelos tried feeling the national identity and distinctive trace, of the ‘mexican man’, or in general on the iberian-american being. In this particular working, it’s also important to remember Luis Villoro (Mexico), Alejandro Korn (Argentina) and Eduardo Nicol (Mexico).
Second step of this reflexion, called ‘historicist’, started in Mexico specially with the great contribution of Leopoldo Zea. In fact, he wanted understanding some specific details at history of ideas in latin-american countries, showing their common points and their common identity in terms of character, language, ethos, and so on. In this category, we can also remember important workings of Arturo Ardao (Uruguay), Arturo Roig (Argentina), and Miró Quesada (Peru).
The third step is called ‘philosophy of liberation’, started in Argentina in the begining of the 70th years.The most important figures of this mouvement were Enrique Dussel (Argentina) and Salazar Bondy (Perú). They intended promoting autenticity of the latin-american philosophy, in terms of recovering their roots and self-conscience of alienation and dependance, of all south-american countries, concerning to USA. They consider that it exists another alternative to the west capitalist mentality – the baroc ethos of tradition, aesthetics and sociability.
Finnaly the fourth step begins with Raul F-Bettancourt whom developes an intercultural philosophy, which can be considered as an evolution process of filosofy of liberation. All conditions of their dependance, that ibero-american philosophy couldn’t appears as a sistematic formulation of an independant thought. In fact, which we call ‘latin-american’ or ‘iberian-american’ philosophy is only a spirit of colonization and ornamental culture of ‘ism(s)‘!
Enrique Dussel is one of the forgers of the philosohy of liberation, whose imprint is to deploy a radical anti-capitalist critics, not only in Argentine, but in the whole continent. Given that in his broad and rich work are several references to aboriginals (indians) in America, their status as colonizated and possibilities about the necessary improvement of that situation.
The basic and main question is anyway to ask about originality of this iberian-american thought. Positions about this essential question, are objectivly from two sides: or there is any kind of specific and original root (originality), which means that there is only a copy of european thought (positivism, rationalism, liberalism), without any particular self-concept, or there is a natural and independant thought, based on some specifical characters. In Peru, we can Salazar Bondy andtalk about José Carlos Mariategui. They think that conditions of their weak developpment, couldn’t create a real or a new philosophy because the conditions and causes of social and cultural backwardness, economic and historical. Thus one can not say that there is a specifically Latin American thought, only a cultural and ornamental expression of a colonized mind. In opposition to this perspective, there are those (Leopold Zea and Enrique Dussel, for ex.) whom believe there is, despite its constraints of historical, economic and social vicissitudes, a real and particular philosophy. This philosophy was the genesis of a peculiar form of aesthetic experience, that however should support the feeling of freedom and the denial of a past of dependence.